Integrative Essay

Pride - The Basis for Relativism

Nate Hansen

Prof. Paulo and Adriana Ribeiro

DCM 2011 - C.S. Lewis

25 January 2010

"I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one”1. This is clearly not a valid argument because it is not at all rational, but completely irrational and based solely on personal opinion. This is one example of Bulverism, something that takes place in almost every argument in society today. In addition to irrational argumentation, because of the sinful nature of us as human beings, the sin of pride has become the main source of all the sin in our lives. Because we live in a fallen world where evil has permeated everything, including all people, sin and pride has led many people to reject God and even morality. This rejection has lead to the dangerous idea of relativism, which has placed the Earth in a state where it is hard to restore because there is no longer absolute truth. Although absolute truth is essentially no longer accepted, logic and reason point to the fact that there is a moral law which can only be denied by our pride, which is a sin, and a personal feeling. Therefore, since logic and reason naturally lead to a moral law and a belief in God, pride, which is the basis for all sins, is the dangerous mechanism, which humans use to reject this truth.

The exclusively spiritual sin of pride is evidently, but often not obviously the source of all sin. This fact is really unmistakable when we take different sins and trace them down to their root source. Let us look at the least obvious example, one that would seem to be the opposite of pride - low self-esteem. Low self-esteem may seem like something we acquire when we have no pride, but really low self-esteem is also a sin, and like I said, all sin can be traced to pride at its base. When someone is insecure with their body shape or size for instance, what they are doing is they are not focusing on God’s truth. An insecure person is not realizing that they are made in God’s image, and that God made them a beautiful person. When there is this low self-esteem, a person is only looking at what they want – a smaller body, bigger arms, better hair, but what they fail to realize is that all these things are worldly things and that they should be happy with the way that God made them. An enormous part of pride also takes place in competition, and argumentation is surely one type of competition. The problem with this type of competition is that people want their own opinion to be the right one that their pride begins to stand in the way of logic. C.S. Lewis even assigns a name – Bulverism - to this reoccurring incident and says in his essay about it that "you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong"2. This is much to often the case in our society, as we can see in politics, debates involving science versus religion, and even in our own homes. As you can see, even though it is a hard sin to pinpoint most of the time, pride is a real troublemaker in our society. Pride is what forms a barrier between God and man, and as long as we have pride, we are not able to see past ourselves and focus on Him. “Pride is the complete Anti-God state of mind and it leads to every other vice”3. As Lewis points out here, pride is the complete opposite way of thinking than God, and he also reveals that pride is what leads to all other sins, or wrongdoings. Now pride has even seeped into society’s view of morality, which has become something very relativistic.

Morality, unfortunately has become a word that is on the road to becoming obsolete. In our society, people have begun to look at morality as something relative, something that is not absolute. When people come to this conclusion they are not coming to it using the method of reason, because there is no way of being able to use logic to come to the conclusion that morality is relative. If going by logic, then "what's true is what's "true for you," and what's true is also what's "true for me." Both truths are true, even if they conflict"4. As you can see this does not make sense – you cannot have two conflicting truths. So, obviously people who do not believe in a moral law are refusing to believe it because of their pride, which is a sin to those who are ‘inside’ morality. Again, as the definition of bulverizing suggests, "it is perfectly easy to go on all your life giving explanations of religion, love, morality, honour, and the like, without having been inside any of them"2. This is the reason it is so important to look at the facts of every issue, including morality rather than our own pride taking control and jumping to a conclusion simply because we do not want to believe the other side of the argument. Further, when we take control of a situation on our own, not only can we only see what we want to and miss many important ideas, but we also face the danger of ignoring our Creator, God. “A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you're looking down, you can't see something that's above you.” This shows that as long as you have pride, you are always looking down, and can easily miss so much because you are so focused on yourself. This is what happens with relativism, because people are focused on believing what they want to believe. They do not want to believe that there is a moral law because then there has to be someone who created this law, which in turn means they will have to answer to a higher power. The danger then because of pride, is that relativists are living their lives by something that is false, and until they look at this issue with the approach of reason, it will not be fixed. This is how potent pride can be in our lives, and "[u]ntil Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs"2. Humans must learn to get over their personal pride and look at everything from a logical perspective before it is too late. Until then, morality and relativism will continue to be at war and morality will remain the minority.

Thus, logic proves that morality is absolute truth, but because we live in a fallen world, pride – the chief of sins - remains in the way and morality remains relative. When this is the case, we are working against God and we cannot properly work to redeem God’s world when we do not even believe in his truths. For this reason, pride is the main enemy that we need to fight so that one day, we can all admit that morality is truth, God’s law is truth, so that his will can be done.

Works Cited

1. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6.

2. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Bulverism, 1941.

3. C.S. Lewis, The Inspirational Writings of C.S. Lewis.

4. Plantinga, Cornelius Jr. Engaging God's World. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Co. 2002. Print

"Human Pain"

"It is men, not God, who have produced racks, whips, prisons, slavery, guns, bayonets, and bombs; it is by human avarice or human stupidity, not by the churlishness of nature, that we have poverty and overwork". Although this is obviously true, Lewis talks about why a lot of pain and suffering is not originally our fault. Pain is something evil, and it is clear that it is evil unlike sins which are harder to suspect because as Lewis says, "the deeper they are the less their victim suspects their existence; they are masked evil". Because pain is obviously evil and it is seen everywhere in out world, this is an important topic, and Lewis describes it well as he comes to the ultimate conclusion that pain is necessary for us as humans to grow.

A thought that I could really relate to was that "[e]veryone has noticed how hard it is to turn our thoughts to God when everything is going well with us". I think most of us can relate to this, because when things are going well for us, we feel like we do not need God, that we are doing just fine on our own. Not only that, but because of our pride, we tell ourselves that everything is going well without God, ignoring him and pretending that we are our own God. It's not until we run into a problem that a lot of us ask God for help. This is the same for non-Christians. They choose not to believe in God because they can handle things just fine on their own. It is often not until they face dire circumstances that they turn to God because there is nowhere else to turn. Even when things are going well, what we fail to realize is that God is there all along, and loves us even when we ignore him. Could we ask for a better God? At this point, I think you would have to be crazy to say yes.

In relation to this, Lewis states this point very logically and clearly when he states that "[u]ntil the evil man finds evil unmistakably present in his existence, in the form of pain, he is enclosed in illusion. Once pain has roused him, he knows that he is in some way or other 'up against' the real universe: he either rebels (with the possibility of a clearer issue and deeper repentance at some later stage) or else makes some attempt at an adjustment, which, if pursued, will lead him to religion". He says here pain is clearly a part of our world whether people reject it or acknowledge it. Similarly, we have lots of work to complete here at college whether we face the reality or not. Then Lewis says that once a person has accepted the truth that there is pain in the world, that person either rebels (adding more pain to the world) or wants to fix the pain that is present which in one way or another will lead to religion. I love this because it really narrows everything down (either option 1, or option 2), allowing Lewis to easily develop his point. Lewis also mentions the interesting point that atheists often curse God for the pain a suffering that the world is enduring, even though atheists claim that they do not believe in God. Thus, it is clear that the 'problem' of pain points toward there being a God. What other reason would there be for pain to exist, that is, pain that "cannot thus be traced to ourselves". Where else would it come from?

God uses pain in our lives in order to make us grow and become stronger. Without pain, it is not possible to see beyond ourselves, but it is the pain that we endure that teaches us lessons. When we make our own decisions, we must make them using the wisdom of God in our hearts. "When we act from ourselves alone-that is, from God in ourselves-we are collaborators in, or live instruments of, creation". We must listen and obey God because "the mere obeying is also intrinsically good, for, in obeying, a rational creature consciously enacts its creaturely role, reverses the act by which we fell, treads Adam's dance backward, and returns". This is how we make the world a better place, by surrendering to God and letting him work in us so that we can work our way backwards, in the opposite direction of the one that Adam and Eve decided to take. So we must give ourselves up, give up our own selfish desires to do things on our own, and in our own way. Although it requires pain, "there is one right act - that of self- surrender - which cannot be willed to the height by fallen creatures unless it is unpleasant". Pain is essential to life, and it is by acknowledging this and working for God (not against him) that we will make our world better and ultimately redeem it. Everything is made, as it says in Hebrews, 'perfect through suffering'.

"Vocation in the Kingdom of God"

This chapter discusses everything from our role within the Kingdom of God to the difference between secular post-secondary education opposed to a Christian one. We as Christians are called to become prime citizens of God's Kingdom. A prime citizen meaning someone that "passionately yearns for the Kingdom. A prime citizen has been redeemed far down in her spirit, way downtown in her heart, so that she deeply loves God and the things of God". Plantinga also discusses the fact that unbelievers are leading the redemption of creation in some respects such as the environment, even though their motives for doing so are obviously much different than that of Christians. This shows us that God is using everyone, not only Christians to redeem our fallen world - and should tell us, that all people are good people. I feel that far too often, Christians are filled with pride in this area, and they think they are better than people who are not Christians. Could it be possible that God is allowing non-Christians to be leaders as well so that we can learn to work together as a global community? Just as the pilgrims learned from the natives and vice-versa. Similarly, we can for example teach the secular world about God, and they can teach us how to be better stewards, so that we can take care of the environment. This is why Calvin's ideology is so great, because it teaches that we should be engaging with every aspect of God's creation instead of separating secular and Christian ideas.

Plantinga touches on this topic as well when he is discussing secular and Christian education. He says that one of the dangers of Christian students being enrolled in secular education. He says that "a number of these students will live with a wall between their sacred faith and their secular learning" which keeps us from sifting through all the information we receive to determine what is truth and what is not. With this being said, Plantinga also warns us that a Christian education will not mean that discerning information will be unnecessary, but in order to grow into a mature Christian, it is indeed necessary. "[J]ust as it would be a huge mistake simply to go with the flow on a secular campus, it's a huge mistake to suppose you can get truly educated by floating downstream in a Christian college". This reminds me of "Our English Syllabus" when Lewis explains that it is important for us as students to take control of our own education and learn on our own instead of vulnerable to the idea of simply being educated and not using our minds to decipher what it right and what is wrong. I agree that it is necessary for Calvin to challenge us in this sense because "you can't "rise with Christ" unless you've died with him first, and that means enduring some dark nights of the soul". This is a beautiful quote, and it is so true that we cannot even grow properly if we are not deeply challenged.

The fact that Plantinga spends time talking about the difference between secular and Christian education, really intrigued me and interested me because before I came to Calvin, I was very close to making a decision on going to a secular university in Canada. If I had made this decision, I would have never been introduced to this Calvin Theology that now makes so much sense to me. Just like Plantinga says, I would not have been able to live out my Christian faith in the right way at a secular university because it is just to easy to "go with the flow" and without the encouragement to discern I would "be busy with a hundred other things and [wouldn't] take the time to spend the effort to sort out the good and evil in what [I would have] encounter[ed] on campus to construct a thoughtful Christian philosophy of life" . For this reason, I thank God that I discovered Calvin, and that I will now be able to do what I would not have been able to do on my own. I look forward to becoming (along with all of you), a prime citizen of God's Kingdom.

"Man or Rabbit"

This essay was one of the ones that I enjoyed the most from the ones we have read so far. I liked that it was written for the purpose of non-believers, but believers can also get much pleasure from it. Lewis's arguments for answering the question of whether you can lead a good life without believing in Christianity are beautifully written, and so logical at the same time. His logical thinking is evident when he essentially answers this question in saying that "if Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite im- possible that those who know this truth and those who don't should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowl- edge of the facts must make a difference to one's actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die". This makes it clear that knowing the truth is what will enable one to lead a good life.

If the key then to leading a good life is the truth, then we must figure out what the truth is. I find it interesting that Christians are sure that God is the truth and are committed to living their lives as Christians, whereas people who do not believe in Christianity pretend to believe that that there is no God - and that to them is truth. Yet, they ask the question: "'Can't I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?'... If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true". This is so interesting, and the fact that a person has tried to convince themselves that Christianity is not true, but continues to ask about it should tell us something, should it not? It reminds me of the bible when it says that we are created with the ability and conscience to seek out God, which is exactly what this unbeliever is doing when questioning their beliefs. This overlaps quite nicely with the discussion of honest error, and ignorance of God, and who will be the ones to go to heaven. I know there are many different ideas about this, about whether God will show mercy to those who honestly cannot believe in their hearts. But, overall I do not think we can decipher this, or find a definite answer, for we cannot look into their hearts. It is a good thing to discuss, but in the end, God will be the judge. He is the one that knows the truth about the secrets in our hearts. Since God is perfect, and he is a God of justice and grace, we should not be concerned about this. Let's leave it to the Creator.

A life of uncertainty is not a life worth living in my opinion. To me, it's like trying drive a car in two directions at once - impossible. So, for us as humans, we should get busy asking questions and finding what the truth is about our universe and follow that truth. "You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man,
not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand". I agree with Lewis that finding this truth is essential, but still just the beginning of living a good life. Without truth there is no morality, and "[m]orality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are 'done away' and the rest is a matter of flying". I know this quote has already been overused in class, but it is such an elegant and true illustration of how beautiful and meaningful life is. But, to be able to live this life, the first step for every human being is to seek out the truth. We cannot live life going in two directions. We can't swim in an ocean of uncertainty forever. At some point we need land, solid ground, a truth that is dependable no matter what.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" - John 14:6

"The Inner Ring"

Throughout this essay, Lewis makes known the dangers of inner rings. The key idea is that our main motive for forming inner rings is for the purpose of excluding other people, even though it may be subconscious. Because of this, we make it our goal to become part of that inner ring so we are not the one who is excluded. "Unless you take measures to prevent it, this desire is going to be one of the chief motives of your life". This is bad in my opinion because it is not only a sinful desire, but a useless thing to commit such a vast amount of energy to. It is useless because as Lewis says, "[i]t is the very mark of a perverse desire that it seeks what is not to be had. The desire to be inside the invisible line illustrates this rule. As long as you are governed by that desire you will never get what you want. You are trying to peel and onion: if you succeed there will be nothing left. Until you conquer the fear of being an outsider, an outsider you will remain". Inner rings are not always evil, but if this is the prime desire (as it often is) - this is something we need to avoid.

Although I could say much good about "inner rings" as I am part of one myself, and most of us are, I think it is necessary to examine the cliques, circles, or groups (whatever you want to call them) of friends that we have to ensure that we are involved for the right reasons and that our chief desire is not the unending, never satisfying one that I mentioned above. As I was working on the presentation material for my group presentation on pride this week, I was reminded of this essay. Because pride is purely spiritual and it is such a hard sin to pinpoint, I think it is the perfect sin for Satan to use against us. Throughout the vicious search for an inner ring, "you will always find them hard to enter, for a reason you very well know. You yourself, once you are in, want to make it hard for the next entrant, just as those who are already in made it hard for you". This to me spells pride. It is our pride that wants to exclude outsiders, and we feel personal satisfaction when we accomplish this. We want to feel better, more popular, or cooler than everyone else. I always ask myself, "would Jesus do this?", and in this case as well as most others, certainly not! This is so clearly an issue of pride, and therefore is a perfect chance for Satan or "Screwtape" to intervene. It may even seem like the thing we're doing is good because after all, we have friends, and relationships is such an important thing in life. This is exactly what Satan wants, he wants us to think we're doing something good. Again, this does not mean that we are not doing something good, just like going to church is good when we do it for the right reasons. What we must do though, is carefully study our habits, sift them through to make sure that our inner ring does not "exist for exclusion" and that we are not being prideful. If we are not careful about this, "[t]he quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it".

"The Four Loves"

In this wonderful book, Lewis discusses a lot about love and the truth about it. For example, he uses Eros to represent the sexual aspect of a relationship, and that with Eros alone, a relationship will not last. In his summary of the reading, he uses the analogy of diving into a swimming pool. Eros is the diving, but if they cannot swim, there will be no chance for the relationship to last. Instead, they must get out of the pool and try to dive into another one. Because of this, it is very important to work hard to keep love alive. Lewis uses an illustration that I really like, of a garden as a picture of a couple who are in love. The garden is beautiful - beautiful to look at, incredible to smell, but in order to keep it like that it takes a lot of work to keep out the weeds that could very quickly destroy the entire garden. "[A] garden to say that it will not fence and weed itself, nor prune its own fruit trees, nor roll and cut its own lawns. A garden is a good thing but that is not the sort of goodness it has. It will remain a garden, as distinct from a wilderness, only if someone does all these things to it. Its real glory is of quite a different kind. The very fact that it needs constant weeding and pruning bears witness to that glory. It teems with life. It glows with colour and smells like heaven and puts forward at every hour of a summer day beauties which man could never have created and could not even, on his own resources, have imagined". This is the stunningly beautiful and divine garden which Lewis talks about. Love, and all of it's components are unexplainably magnificent if tended to and treated in the right way, with care.

One of these components of a Christian relationship or marriage that I want to talk a little about is the idea of the wife being submissive. The word "submissive" is something I think we need to be very very careful with - even as Christians, but also with unbelievers. I noticed that, even in class yesterday when submission was mentioned, everyone started to laugh. Why was this so funny? To me, it's a serious thing that should be treated with very careful attention because it is something that can very easily be abused if you do not follow exactly what the word means. Before even mentioning that the wife should submit, I think we should establish the job of the husband first. In Ephesians 5 it commands "Husbands [to] love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, to make her holy...[i]n the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself". Now this is a big statement. Love your wife like Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her? It is only after this is in place that a wife can submit to her husband. Also, note that this does not mean that a husband has the right to make every decision in the family, for how can that be love? Love is working together and collaborating in order to make a decision. I see it as a leadership role for the husband, and not a dictatorship role. Lewis even specifically points out that "[i]t is submitted rather than asserted", showing that there is nothing that is 'forced', but everything is out of pure love. This is something that can only be explained to a certain extent because even near the end of the chapter in Ephesians it says that "this is a profound mystery". Indeed, it is a mystery and the relationship between a man and wife is best explained by seeing the evidence, seeing it is action.

I feel that part of the reason for a lot of male dominance in our society is due to that simple word 'submit'. It has been abused far too much and has been accepted as a whole different meaning from what God intended it to be. This is why I think it is not something to joke about, but rather something to be cautiously addressed, with careful attention being payed to the true meaning. When this is accomplished, only then will it help the garden of love to flourish.

"Redemption"

Redemption is made possible because of our loving, gracious God - and that is what this chapter is all about. We caused this world to fall, and without Jesus' death on the cross, there would be no use of trying to restore it. "Jesus Christ came to put right what we human beings had put wrong by our sin". This is what is meant by the word atonement that Plantinga also uses; atonement is "a self-sacrificial act or process that makes up for sin, either ours or another's and therefore tends to reconcile the sinner with the one sinned against". This is the beauty of God that we do not appreciate as often as we should. Not only did Jesus die for us, but he endured everything that us as sinners go through. "He got himself baptized...He absorbed accusations...He accepted rebuke...He endured gossip...Jesus endured the kind of mockery that shreds a person's dignity". Even after knowing this, we still "chafe under commandments. They nick our pride and cramp our style". We need to remember that God did not set these commandments to make our lives miserable, but rather to protect us. He is basically giving us the key to success, and warning us what not to do so that we can avoid getting hurt and getting into trouble; after all, "God's commandments are all pro-life". It is by following the 'advice' that he has given us that we will not only succeed, but work to redeem our fallen world.

As a Christian, to redeem this world, I think that first of all a "person needs to attach to Christ by prayer...and listening to the Word of God. A person needs to trust Christ, to lean on him, to surrender to him". This is the hardest part, to overcome your inner pride of wanting to do things on your own and trusting the only hope that our world has. After this, everything else will fall into place, including "a double grace" - the sanctification and justification. These are both things that are life-long processes, but it all contributes to the restoration of our world. Without this, without surrendering to God, "without the guidance of God "doing what we want" is a recipe for falling right back into slavery", the slavery to sin that is. Pride, I believe is the biggest wall, the largest barrier between us and God. Pride, especially for me is what makes me want to do things my own way, and pride is what holds me back from engaging in redemptive activities that God would want me to participate in, simply because I think 'I'm better than that'. Stepping beyond that, climbing over that barrier is what leads to flourishing relationships, keeping in touch with family members I would rather ignore, praying to God when I don't feel like it, listening to boring people, driving patiently among impatient drivers, and longing to grow in the knowledge of Christ - to name as few that Plantinga also notes. It is when this happens that we begin to see redemption in our world - in all areas.

It is so vital to redeem ourselves in Christ so that we can be transformed and fulfill our purpose of doing the same for the world. To help us along the way, we have the ten commandments, a double grace, and God - if we can swallow our pride and accept that he is our creator, our King, the Messiah. "The whole world belongs to God, the whole world has fallen, and so the whole world needs to be redeemed". God became a man, endured unbearable, agonizing pain and died for us, now it's time for us to do our part.

"Learning in War-Time"

In this interesting paper, Lewis discusses learning, and how we should never be afraid of it, regardless of the circumstances. "To admit that we can retain our interest in learning under the shadow of these eternal issues, but not under the shadow of a European war, would be to admit that our ears are closed to the voice of reason and very wide open to the voice of our nerves and our mass emotions". This essentially is an overview of what he elaborates on throughout the speech, saying that the reason we do not want to learn during the war is merely because of our emotions - we are afraid that we should be focusing our attention to the devastating events of the world. But, Lewis says that we cannot be led by these emotions because there will always be eternal issues, there will always be death, but war "forces us to remember it...[w]ar makes death real to us". This is the main idea that Lewis thoroughly conveys through this essay.

I want to draw attention to a couple important points and discuss them briefly. The first is that, instead of being led by our emotions, especially in a time of war like Lewis says, we must think rationally, and not irrationally so that we can figure out what is ultimately going to be best for the world. When discussing learning during a time of war, we may ask the question: "'How can you be so frivolous and selfish as to think of anything but the war?'", but is it really right to think only about the war? What about what God says? God created us to long for learning, to yearn for knowing more, and since he gave us this gift, I do not think he would want us to cease educating ourselves. "An appetite for these things exists in the human mind, and God makes no appetite in vain. We can therefore pursue knowledge as such, and beauty, as such, in the sure confidence that by so doing we are either advancing to the vision of God ourselves or indirectly helping others to do so". Like Lewis says here, the pursuit of knowledge is part of the vision of God, so we should never be led to think that it is something we should not do. Actually, we would be disobeying God's original plan for us as humans. For this reason, we must never totally rely on our emotions, but also think practical while having faith in God - for he knows what he's doing.

In trusting God and the fact that his vision is for us to learn, another crucial notion is brought to my attention after this reading. When learning, we must remember to have the right motives for doing it. We can never be reminded enough that "[h]umility, no less than the appetite, encourages us to concentrate simply on the knowledge or the beauty, not too much concerning ourselves with their ultimate relevance to the vision of God". As a person learns more and more, it is easy to become prideful and consumed with the knowledge that oneself has knowledge rather than applying the knowledge learned. This is a great danger, and this is why it is important to remember the "relevance [of knowledge] to the vision of God". This is also clearly stated when Lewis quotes a book that says that "we may come to love knowledge -- our knowing -- more than the thing known: to delight not in the exercise of our talents but in the fact that they are ours, or even in the reputation they bring us". Again, we must have the right motives for learning. I am afraid that far too often people learn as much as they can in order to be respected, to make more money, to feel superior, and ultimately to feed one's pride. This, however, is something that brings us further from God, rather than closer - and who would want that? Always remember, the God's vision should be the number one priority. The key is to find the best possible balance between emotions, practicality, and primarily - God.

"The Poison of Subjectivism"

In what seems to be an addition to "Mere Christianity" Lewis writes about the flawed modern view of morality and the problems that it poses. Before our modern times, "no thinker of the first rank ever doubted that our judgements of value were rational judgements or that what they discovered was objective. It was taken for granted that in temptation passion was opposed, not to some sentiment, but to reason". Today's modern view of morality is that truth is not absolute, that there is no set right and wrong. "It does not believe that value judgements are really judgements at all...[t]o say that a thing is good is merely to express our feeling about it; and our feeling about it is the feeling we have been socially conditioned to have". That is how Lewis explains the view of morality that is without concern accepted by most people. The problem with this is that first of all, it does not make sense because "the whole attempt to jettison traditional values as something subjective and to substitute a new scheme of values for them is wrong. It is like trying to lift yourself by your own coat collar". Secondly, it is poisonous because "[i]f we once admit that what God means by "goodness" is sheerly different from what we judge to be good, there is no difference left between pure religion and devil worship". When we treat morality as as relative, changing the standards so freely, with no comparison to a previously instilled standard, then there is really no way of telling the difference between what is good and what is evil. Lewis uses the example of religion and devil worship, but any example would be valid. Likewise, there would be no way to differentiate the difference between murder and love. Do you get the idea of what Lewis is warning us about?

The most important reason that Lewis is warning us about subjectivism is, in my opinion that until we get rid of it, and base our morality on an established standard, there can only be limited progress in our world. For "[i]f good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it; but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can the train progress towards it? Our ideas of the good may change, but they cannot change either for the better or the worse if there is no absolute and immutable good to which they can recede". We spend so much time wondering why the world is in so much pain, and many blame God for it, when the problem lies on Earth. We will never improve the world, we will never reach the train station when it is moving just as fast as the train. First, this needs to be realized, and then we need to figure out exactly what the moral law is and where it comes from. Only then can we begin to properly redeem our fallen world.

Unfortunately, because of man's sinful desires, the moral law is something that will likely never be encouraged in our world. Even if it was, the law would still be broken because we are all sinners. But think, if we were conditioned to live by the moral law, where right and wrong are objective rather than subjectivism, we would be headed in a much better direction. After all, "a philosophy which does not accept value as eternal and objective can lead us only to ruin".

"The Fall"

"If only there were evil people somewhere , insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

This is essentially what Plantinga talks about in the chapter of "The Fall" - that every human being has evil in them, and that evil is not something that can be separated from good because good and evil are so closely intertwined. Evil is what caused the fall after creation. Because of the fall after creation, evil has permeated the world, and evil is undoubtedly ubiquitous. Plantinga defines "evil as any spoiling of shalom, any deviation from the way God wants things to be". In the beginning God created everything perfect, the way he knew it should be, so this shows that anything that is different from what God had originally made is evil. "[E]vil is a kind of parasite on goodness" which illustrates that we cannot have evil without goodness, or else the parasite would have nothing to attach itself to. Overall, Plantinga spends the majority of this chapter discussing corruption and how it works in our world, as well as where evil comes from and who instills it in our hearts.

If we imagine our hearts as goodness, and that parasites were created by the fall of man - the parasites are what corrupt our hearts. Each time we take something good, and add something to it that originally was not there, a parasite attaches to our heart. Over time, more and more parasites stick to our hearts, embedding themselves and getting deeper and deeper. Although we are born with a sin nature, we do it to ourselves, we make the choice of allowing another parasite near our heart. In order to reduce the amount of evil that permeates us, it is crucial to make the right decision and be mindful of what the right one is when we are faced with a choice. Like Plantinga says, you cannot cling to multiple things. "Like a sailor with one foot on a dock and the other on a departing catamaran, we have to choose" because if we try to cling to more than one thing, a person can be split. Let's look at it this way: We have to make a choice just like the sailor who had to choose either land, or the boat. God is sinless and he is the one who created everything that is good, and our hearts as well as everything else in the world are corrupt with evil. Then you tell me, what choice should we make? What should we cling to?

If your answer to the previous question was God, then please keep reading. If your answer was anything else, please stop reading now. If we cling to God (the correct choice), and the source of all goodness, we have a much better chance of fighting off those parasites and keeping them from getting to our hearts. If we stick with God we are also more likely to acknowledge "that our lives themselves have come from God and that we therefore owe God our loyalty and gratitude". If we ignore this fact, we face danger. For example, "people often take pride not only in their accomplishments but also in their intelligence, good looks, good breeding, and good coordination, as if they had gifted themselves with these things". Those of us who do this are putting faith in ourselves instead of God - when we should be doing the opposite, and thanking God for these things. Another consequence of ignoring the correct choice of clinging to God is what comes after we take pride in ourselves. If someone takes pride in themselves, they begin to make choices based on what they desire as a corrupted person. In other words, "a corrupted person turns God's gifts away from their intended purposes". Plantinga illustrates this with the example that a person "might use her excellent mind and first-class education not to extend the reach of God's kingdom but just to get rich. She wants to get rich, not in order to support terrific projects in the world, but just to move up the social ladder". This type of person is selfish, using her gift from God to please herself instead of blessing others with it, as God would want. Are you beginning to see the danger of choosing to follow a selfish path as opposed to a path that will help to restore a fallen world like God intended?

To keep the parasites away from our hearts, we need to fend them off. In order to fend them off, and keep evil away we need to find the right way of going about it in this fallen world. There are countless ways that good has been corrupted, and because good and evil cannot be separated, it is important to adhere to the truth so that we may take a stand and work to redeem what we ourselves have caused - "The Fall".

"Analyze the Artist - David Bazan"

An artist who I really enjoy and admire - David Bazan grew up in a Christian family. He was the leader of his first band "Pedro the Lion" which was a Christian indie rock band, until recently when he left the band and became a solo artist. He now claims that he is going through a "breakup with God" and that he is no longer a Christian who believes in God. Although he calls himself Agnostic as opposed to Atheist, his latest album "Curse Your Branches" strongly shows that he is struggling to believe in God and it is clear that he is searching for the truth.

When first listening to his new album, I was quite offended by some of the lyrics in some of the songs, but decided that I would still listen to his music. I was reminded of David Bazan when the first paper we read in class was "Meditation in a Toolshed", written by C.S. Lewis. When I was listening To David Bazan's new album and I was offended by the lyrics, I was only looking at him and his music and struggling to look along. Something inside me knew that I should not reject his music, and I now realize the reason. David Bazan is simply struggling with his beliefs and questioning the existence of God and the fact that he created the world. This is exactly what "Screwtape" wants for Bazan - to struggle with trusting in God. After all, Bazan is a well known artist and an influence to the society and especially his fans, so of course Satan wouldn't want him to tell the world that God is the way.

Below are the lyrics and a live version of the first song "Hard to Be" on his newest album. Take the time to listen to the whole song and follow along with the lyrics as him and his friend Casey sing. Remember to look along - from Bazan's perspective, and at - from an outside perspective in order to draw the right conclusions.



Hard To Be – David Bazan

You’ve heard the story you know how it goes
Once upon a garden we were lovers with no clothes
Fresh from the soil we were beautiful and true
In control of our emotions till we ate the poison fruit

And now its...

(chorus)
Hard to be
Hard to be
Hard to be
A decent human being

Wait just a minute
You expect me to believe
that all this misbehaving grew from one enchanted tree
And helpless to fight it we should all be satisfied
WIth this magical explanation for why the living die

And why it’s...

(chorus)

Childbirth is painful toil to grow our food
Ignorance made us hungry
Information made us no goo
Every burden misunderstood

I swung my tassel to the left side of my cap
Knowing after graduation there would be no going back
and no congratulations from my faithful family
some of whom are already fasting to intercede for me

Because it’s...

(chorus)

"Mere Christianity"

This reading includes the first four chapters of Lewis's book "Mere Christianity" where he establishes the fact that there is moral standard, a Law of Human Nature. He not only proves that there is, but he goes on to show why this is true using many examples that are easy to understand. At one point he talks about deciphering between two different instincts that we have in many situations. He believes "you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys". This is just one of the great examples he uses to illustrate what he is proving. It is with the use of intelligent analogies, such is this one that Lewis builds from the ground up, the fundamentals of the Law of Nature in a way that is seemingly impossible to argue against.

Since everything that Lewis writes in these first chapters is so hard to disagree with, I just want to discuss something I noticed as I was reading. I noticed that because of our sinful nature it is often our desire to reject that there is a Moral Law - simply because we do not want to believe that a specific thing about it wrong. What I mean is that even if we know within our conscience that there is a Moral Law, if there arises something that we do not want to believe, we cannot make an exception for the laws, because if one law is wrong, they all must be wrong. So, our only option left is to deny altogether that there is a Moral Law. It is true that "Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson". This is an example proving that some people deny a real Right and Wrong, even though they know in their hearts that there is, because they know when something is 'not fair' - or in other words 'wrong'. Instead of admitting that there is absolute truth, we tend to reject it and believe only what we want to believe because of our selfish nature. It's almost like saying 'I don't believe that I have to get out of bed tomorrow' when the truth is that you do have to get out of bed whether you believe it or not.

This reminds me once again of 'Meditation in a Toolshed'. It is so important to look at everything as well as look along everything. This is how the ultimate truth is determined after all. For instance, some people believe that there is no hell, and some believe that there is. Either there is a hell or there isn't - and one of the 'beliefs' is wrong. So, instead of fighting over who's belief is right, it is essential to look at and along and at the issue in order to determine what the real Right and Wrong are, and where the ultimate truth lies.

"Screwtape Letters"

The following poem is my response to "The Screwtape Letters". It includes my understanding, thoughts and feelings about it. I decided not to explain and elaborate on what I wrote for the purpose of treating it as a piece of art. For the things that are not obvious, I want to leave open for interpretation.

"Are You Sleeping?"

You're sleeping. Your entire life you've been asleep.
Didn't you hear it? That doze you're in, don't get in too deep.
If you do, beware, for he may be forced to leap.
Motionless, stagnant, you continue to sleep.

Hushed, though still alive you lie in that bed.
Effortless, painless, you've got nothing to dread.
Give it up now, quit, do it while you're ahead.
After all, he's got you, got you hanging by a thread.

Wake up! Wake up! This is it, your go!
Here's your food, take it, you need it to grow.
You're ready, awake, and the light shining through the window.
But, something catches your eye in the light, it's a crow.

Being up, awake, and alert is so tiring.
That bed, for a nap, is what you're aspiring.
Though your time awake and conscious was inspiring,
No doubt, soon, you'll willingly be retiring.

As you lie down, eyes closed, already deep in rest,
I whisper in your ear and grasp the soul from your chest.
I now know for certain - my uncle will be impressed.
Now on to the next, who'll be my guest?

~ Nait Hansen

"The Weight of Glory"

In this sermon written by Lewis, he talks about many aspects of glory. He discusses the beauty of glory, even though it is not always easy to live for God and glorify God, it is something Lewis would never give up. The hope for glory itself is worth so much more, than our earthly desires which he describes when he says: "If I had rejected the authoritative and scriptural image of glory and stuck obstinately to the vague desire which was, at the outset, my only pointer to heaven, I could have seen no connexion at all between that desire and the Christian promise. But now, having followed up what seemed puzzling and repellent in the sacred books, I find, to my great surprise, looking back, that the connexion is perfectly clear. Glory, as Christianity teaches me to hope for it, turns out to satisfy my original desire and indeed to reveal an element in that desire which I had not noticed". This shows Lewis' reflection on glory in his own life and how much happiness it has given him. It has satisfied his desire, and gives him hope for something that he had never even known before. This is what I want to discuss - the fact that God's glory is an eternal thing unlike everything on Earth that we are told will satisfy us but does not.

God's eternal glory is what will satisfy us because it is never ending. Contrary to this fact, we are told and even sometimes forced in our world the believe otherwise. We are told that material things will satisfy us, that sex will satisfy us, that money will satisfy us. It is so true that "[a]lmost our whole education has been directed to silencing this shy, persistent, inner voice; almost all our modem philosophies have been devised to convince us that the good of man is to be found on this earth. And yet it is a remarkable thing that such philosophies of Progress or Creative Evolution themselves bear reluctant witness to the truth that our real goal is elsewhere". Especially in the public school system where I attended elementary school and high school, it is evident that God is no longer part of our education. This was no always so, but seeing as this sermon was written in 1942 and Lewis had said then that God was almost out of the education system - we can see now that God is completely gone. This is indeed a shame, because if God has been removed from our education, the world is trying to "convince us that the good of man is to be found on this earth" which is tempting, as it is more often than not, the easy route to take.

So, we must choose - is the good of man found on earth, or is glory found with God in heaven. Lewis makes a statement that "[e]ither glory means to me fame, or it means luminosity". Fame is the earthly way to go about it, making life all about ourselves - I mean who wouldn't want that? Who wouldn't want to be Brad Pitt, or Megan Fox, or John Mayer. This is Satan's temptation, and it is a tempting way of life to accept, but we know better, we know where the real reward lies. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth...but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven" as it says in Matthew 6. This is important to remember, and we frequently need to reflect on our own lives and ask ourselves this. Where are we storing up our treasures? Are we storing up material things, are we looking for fame so that people will look at us and give us the attention? No, let us divert our energy and focus toward God. That is what will satisfy our desire, and all of our longings - some that we may not even know about yet. As Lewis puts it; living for Christ, living as a Christian is "precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know". So, let us all give God the glory, "[f]or glory meant good report with God, acceptance by God, response, acknowledgment, and welcome into the heart of things. The door on which we have been knocking all our lives will open at last".

"Creation"

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth...God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good" - Genesis 1:1, 31.

In this chapter, Plantinga talks about many concepts related to creation, including the meaning of the Christian doctrine of creation, why God created the universe and us, and what our roles are as beings in a now fallen world. Also an important point that the author makes that we are not God ourselves, but only images of God. The creation story supports the fact that we are images of God, whereas the evolutionary theory supports the idea that we are our own God. "We are not God, but only images of God" is what I will focus my thoughts on.

Suppose for a moment that we are our own God. Although we may not always see it, there are many people even in our society today that think they are the God of their own their universe. This belief is definitely supported by the theory of evolution, because if evolution is true, we are "mere products of natural selection working off random genetic mutations". Not only does this make me feel unimportant and more like an animal than a human, but if looked at more carefully shows that there is really no purpose to life. Thus, if there is no purpose to life, I might as well be the God of my own universe. When this is someone's belief, it introduces the concept of creative anti-realism which Plantinga also talks about. This means that there is no certain "way things are", but what is true for one person may not be true for someone else. Plantinga explains it as: "what's true is what's "true for you," and what's true is also what's "true for me." Both truths are true, even if they conflict". Creative anti-realism disregards morality, and everything becomes relative which logically does not work - so what we need is a moral standard, absolute truth. In order to have absolute truth, everyone must agree on truth, and as opposed to the definition of anti-realism, what's true for you must also be the same truth for me. Can you see now how it does not work to be our own God, which in turn also poses a problem for evolution. I agree with Prof. Ribeiro's comment in class when he said that he was not against evolution, but simply the ideology behind the theory of evolution. What I just described is one of those ideas, or dare I say - a flaw.

Since we cannot be our own God, we must be made in the image of God, like the bible suggests. Because we are made in God's image, and because we live in a fallen world, our mission as Christians is to become like him. "According to God's intelligence, the way to thrive is to help others to thrive; the way to flourish is to cause others to flourish; the way to fulfill yourself is to spend yourself. Jesus himself tried to get this lesson across to his disciples by washing their feet, hoping to ignite a little of the trinitarian life in them". I think this is a beautiful quote, as it illustrates truth. The truth is that we flourish when we help others flourish, and since this is according to God, it is a valuable lesson on how to live. It is essential to live for others and not ourselves. Remember that we are not God, so we must live for the one who is our God. The fact that Jesus himself set this example of spending himself for others by washing the disciples' feet reveals his humility. This is the example that we should follow as we strive to become more like Christ. God did not have to create us, neither was it an accident. He chose to create us out of love, as part of his nature - and that I feel is in itself a good enough reason for us to thrive in order to help others thrive; and for us to flourish to cause others to flourish, and in the fullness of time to redeem our fallen world so that God may once again gaze upon the world and 'see that indeed, it is very good'.

"Our English Syllabus"

Lewis covers many topics in this lengthy essay, yet they are all related to learning and education. One of the main points that Lewis makes is that "learning, considered in itself, has, on my view, no connexion at all with education". At first glance, this may seem contradictory but as we look deeper into this, we can see that Lewis does in fact make perfect sense. Lewis believes that "institution[s] are homes not for teaching but for the pursuit of knowledge" which suggests that as university students, we are to take control of our own learning and not let people tell us what we have to know. To pursue learning in the best sense of the word implies that we chase, thirst for, follow, yearn, or strive to learning. Further, "[t]he proper question for a freshman is not 'What will do me most good?' but 'What do I most want to know?' For nothing that we have to offer will do him any good unless he can be persuaded to forget all about self-improvement". Lewis states that as students we must decide what it is we love most and then dive into learning as much as we can about it. The above are some of the main ideas that Lewis presents and develops throughout this essay.

Primarily, I can say that I agree with Lewis, but I cannot say that I do completely. I believe it true that we must "find time for both education and training: our danger is that equality may mean training for all and education for none". It is essential to have a balance of both education and training, or else we would almost become like robots, taking in the information that we are told and and treating it as the truth. Lewis is right that this is a danger, which is why we must take control of our own learning. When we learn about a concept, it is important to take that information and analyze it ourselves - discerning what is bad and what is good, what is wrong and what is right, and what we are passionate about and what we are not passionate about. Discerning and letting the things we learn sift through our minds empowers us not only to become better students but helps us to detect and and observe the truth and the evil in what we are being told. It also proves that we are learning and taking charge to "pursue knowledge" on our own, just as Lewis suggests. In pursuing this knowledge, we must remember that "a perfect study of anything requires a knowledge of everything" which is impossible to do. Instead it is important to opt for the most important concepts - which is another skill to have in order to be a successful learner. Lewis elaborates well on this when he says that if "we picture our subject as a tree we have first of all the soil in which it grows...[l]et us keep quiet about the soil, and go on to the roots" - the roots symbolizing the most important concepts that we can draw out of what may often times seem like an overabundance of information.

Although picking the "roots" when we learn is a wise choice, I do not agree with Lewis that "nothing that we have to offer will do him any good unless he can be persuaded to forget all about self-improvement" because sometimes we need to study subjects that we don't necessarily want to - ie. the core curriculum - in order to make us more well-rounded individuals. Often too, it is within the areas of learning that we often do not think we enjoy that we find the thing that we "most want to know", as Lewis says. After all, God often challenges us to do things that we do not want to do, and if we obey they end up being the most rewarding experiences of all - so why would learning something that we initially do not want to be any different? I think that there is a slight bias presented in this essay by Lewis since he was gifted with the ability to write. Although this is something he was extremely passionate about, he may have been even more of an influence if he had studied for example the sciences as well. Overall, I agree with Lewis that it is important to find what you most want to know, but not without establishing a wider base of knowledge in order to build a stronger foundation.

Whether we are in agreement with Lewis with respect these issues of education and learning, I believe it is most important to first of all be curious, to have the desire to learn. With this, whether you are learning something you are passionate about, or something you is hardly interesting - you are learning nonetheless and adding to your core foundation of knowledge. Remember to "keep quiet about the soil, and go on to the roots". My hope is that we long to be educated. More importantly, let us yearn to learn.

"Longing and Hope"

"As a deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God"

I think the main idea from this reading is the fact that we as humans have hopes and longings. The things we hope for are what eventually become longings as we become more and more passionate about them. The things we long or yearn for something, "we are seeking union with something from which we are separated". The things from which we are separated from can be a number of things, from a best friend, girlfriend, or family, to "a happy time" or "a lovely place". Regardless of what it is that we long for, God is always at the centre.

It is necessary to note that "God has made us for himself. Our sense of God runs in us like a stream, even though we divert it toward other objects. We human beings want God even when we think that what we really want is a green valley, or a good time from our past, or a loved one". This shows again that what we yearn for is ultimately God. I know that personally I long to be loved, and long for a sense of community, and to be surrounded by friends and family who I can have a deep rather than shallow relationship with. Behind all this though is God. I like to think of it as going through our life on Earth to find the things that bring us joy, and finding the things that will bring glory to God as well. Then at the end of our lives when we go to heaven, we are granted the ultimate joy - God.

The other essential part that cannot be forgotten is that "we also need love. Love gets us out of our shell. It lifts our interest not only toward Christ but also toward others, so that when we begin to hope, we naturally hope for them as well as for ourselves". Love is one of the most important things in life. Love is what enables us to be selfless, to care for and help other people, and much more. Love, if everyone in the world possessed enough of it, would make it a better place for all of us. With love and of course faith, we should as a global community be able to carry out God's redemptive plan. Let us keep faith, hope, longing, and love to glorify God, and be a positive example to our fallen world.

"We Have No Right to Happiness"

"I went away thinking about the concept of a 'right to happiness'" says Lewis, as he begins his essay on this topic. He focuses on the example of a man (Mr. A) who leaves his wife (Mrs. A) for another woman (Mrs. B.) who has left her husband for Mr. A. Lewis uses this situation as a basis to support his opinion that a "right to happiness doesn't, for me, make much more sense than a right to be six feet tall...or to get good weather whenever you want to have a picnic".

Lewis "can understand a right as a freedom guaranteed me by the laws of the society I live in" meaning that we have the right to do whatever the law allows us to do. Therefore, since divorce is permitted under the laws of the state, it is regarded as a right, so Mr. A has a right to leave his wife, just as he does in the above example. In our society, the Natural Law, and the laws of the state are regarded as the same thing - 'if the law permits me to do it, then it must be morally right'. When I say Natural Law, I mean the laws of what is morally right and wrong, which has been instilled in our conscience. It is often easy to fall under this influence, but I believe that they are completely separate. We must not allow "the actual laws of the state [to] become absolute" as Lewis points out. The fact that people today are establishing the laws of the state as their moral standard is just an excuse to achieve our sinful desires. Even those who are not Christians are given a conscience from the beginning, so the issue is that we cannot decipher the truth or not, but that we neglect what we know deep down is truth. Also, when the Holy Spirit is not present in us, our conscience becomes distorted and our judgement of right and wrong is thrown off track. Although this may be the case, it is still no good reason for why we should deny the truth.

I think anyone if they really think about it using their conscience can see that Lewis's example of Mr. A leaving his wife for Mrs. B is morally wrong. If not, their conscience must either be quite twisted, or they are simply denying the truth. This is (although I don't like to say it) immature, because this method of denying the Natural Law and finding a way around the laws of the state is easy to do with anything. Someone could say for example, "I don't feel like working or going to class this week, I'm just going to take a trip and relax till next week". What is it that keeps most of us from doing this? After all, it would make us 'happy' and it would relieve a lot of stress. Well, we know that it is right for us to work hard and do well in our classes, and we would feel guilty for skipping a week of class. This is a simple example showing difference between the laws of the state and the Natural Law. It is easy to get around the laws of the state in any situation, so we must remember not to take the easy way, the way of today's society but fight against it and cling to the truth - our compass, our conscience. "Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it" - Proverbs 4:23.

"Bulverism"

"In the old days it was supposed that if a thing seemed obviously true to a hundred men, then it was probably true". Today, with more complex ways of thinking (Freudian, Marxist), it becomes a little more complicated. Lewis proposes that because there are these different perspectives, "their thoughts are psychologically tainted at the source", meaning that for example the marxists would analyze a situation by economic class, and the freudians would analyze it by various complexes. The only way to avoid these tainted thoughts is to assess the situation "on purely logical grounds" says Lewis, but what people do instead is "assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly". This is what Lewis defines as Bulverism, and "[u]ntil Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs".

I find it hard to disagree with Lewis, and the main point that he makes is something that we all can apply to our lives. Above all, I think it is important to note that "you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong". This basically means that we should not judge a person or a situation immediately before looking at the facts. This should be considered with anything - from our personal relationships to politics to debates. Also, we must keep in mind that "'refutation is no necessary part of argument'". It is essential to acknowledge your opponents argument, and not assume that it is wrong from the beginning. Although we all do this, it is immature and shows that we are just too lazy to actually try to prove why he or she is wrong about something. Beyond everything else that I obtained from this essay, this is the most important to remember.

"Meditation in a Toolshed"

Looking at, or looking along?

This is the question that Lewis addresses in his short essay: "Meditation in a Toolshed". Since this issue can be applied to almost anything, he uses a plethora of real life examples in a successful attempt to assess whether looking at a situation from the outside or looking along a situation from the inside is the correct method to use.

In society, most often only one of these methods is considered because "it has even come to be taken for granted that the external account of a thing somehow refutes or "debunks" the account given from inside". Lewis, however, recognized this flaw and communicates it through this paper using relatable examples. For instance, a guy who falls in love with a girl. From the inside, the guy looks at this girl and views her as the most beautiful thing in the world and he sees no one else but her. From the outside, a scientist looks at the guy and concludes that this is just his hormones are at work, and because of the "biological stimulus" he is simply having an affair that is normal for any guy. What Lewis does is he reveals that it is not right to look either at, or along this situation (or any other situation) but that both must be considered. After all, "[w]e do not know in advance whether the lover or the psychologist is giving the more correct account of love”.

For the most part, I definitely agree with Lewis's view on this topic. Because "[y]ou get one experience of a thing when you look along it and another when you look at it" I think it is quite rational for us to have the obligation of analyzing both approaches, even if it seems like one may be correct. Just because of a personal opinion it is often difficult to judge "[w]hich is the "true" or "valid" experience" - that is to say whether looking at, or looking along is the best way. Whether it's discovering the "true account of religion", the "true account of sexual love", or simply the true account of someone missing a class. Regardless of the complexity of a given situation, it is essential to look at it and along it. After all, it is often easier to overlook the less complex situations such as the example of someone missing class. It's easy to assume that they slept in, or that they were just too lazy to come, and we forget that when we assume this we are only looking at the situation. Let's look along the situation. What if that person was ill, or had gotten in an accident on the way to class and is now in the hospital? This is a very simple example, but I used it because it is something everyone can relate to because we are habitually quick to judge using only one method (usually only by looking at).

I was almost in disagreement with Lewis when he said that "[i]n particular cases we shall find reason for regarding the one or the other vision as inferior". This makes it seem as though he is saying that one perspective is preferred over the other, but Lewis steered me back in the direction of agreement when shortly after he stated that "we must start with no prejudice for or against either kind of looking". It is important that we have no prejudice for ANY situation, no matter how strongly our personal bias is convinced of a certain conclusion. Similarly, when a crime is committed, all the evidence must be looked at critically, from all angles. Then, in court, the jury makes a final rational decision based on reason, ensuring that there is no bias.

Although it is crucial to look along AND at, "we are often deceived by things from the inside". On the contrary, "it is perfectly easy to go on all your life giving explanations of religion, love, morality, honour, and the like, without having been inside any of them". Lewis is spot on, with respect to both of these quotes and I think this is a danger for us to be aware of. Recall the discussion about how the Muslims, practicing the Islamic religion are submerged in their religion and are only looking along what they are practicing and not at it. It is important that they step back for a moment and look at it as well, especially the extremists who believe it is right to kill Christians. They are looking along their beliefs, but need to look AT what they are doing and realize that it is obviously immoral. Although this seems crazy to those of us who are Christians - we also need to be careful to look AT what we believe and not only ALONG. This is important so that we do not become hypocritical, because ultimately Christians can make the same mistake. This is just one example, but this principle can be applied to anything in life.

Overall, I believe it is necessary to carefully pinpoint a fine balance between rationally looking along, and looking at in every situation, while remembering to "start with no prejudice for or against either kind of looking". As long as this holds true, regardless of the situation - complex, or minuscule; difficult, or seemingly simple, "we just have to find out".